Republican Primary Bound Delegate Count

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE

And again you play dumb to the real facts.

And what are those "real facts"???

Are they different then just regular "facts"???

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I'm not gonna play games with you.
We have had this discussion before and you play dumb or ignore the facts I offer about the republican partys own rules in regards to primary election and delegates.
Good night OKS, sleep tight don"t let the Paul-bots bite .

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

If Ron Paul does not have the delegates and is unelectable and can not get the nomination , why do you persist in beating a dead horse ? As you claim.

Because, I would guess, despite our repeatedly citing the numbers and the mathematical possibilities, Paulistas continue to insist that some divine revelation will come from the sky and change all the numbers by fiat, and Paul will magically win:

1. 100% of the 770 delegates yet to be chosen--not a one going elsewhere
2. ALL the Gingrich delegates, like they like Ron Paul
3. ALL the Santorum delegates, like they like Ron Paul
4. Magically change bound delegates already chosen, and
5. Magically win the California primary despite the fact he has historically wins 11% of the popular vote

and then win by 22 delegates with 1166 delegates!

Originally posted by schuyler
ALL the Santorum delegates, like they like Ron Paul

Link

In Washington, Santorum's county caucus organizer sent an open letter to his fellow supporters urging them to vote for Paul's delegates rather than Romney's.

Here's an excerpt of the letter, obtained by Business Insider:

Romney wants everybody to quit. Quitting may be his solution when his back is up to the wall, but it's not what we want from our leaders. Our country has it's back up against the wall! We need principled fighters and not a pretty boy in a suit. We nominate Romney and it's the equivalent of making him the starting quarterback because he simply looks good in the uniform. He's a defensive coordinators dream. The mere fact he wins in the same places liberals do in the general election says a lot.

At some point, and it might as well be now, people are going to reign back power from party leaders, unite and actually make something like a Paul/Santorum unity slate work. As I see it, it's the only way to balance power, restore it back to the people and take it away from big money.

Those against such an alliance, especially elected state delegates, might want to address future problems and complaints concerning government to the person in the mirror. I fail to see the logic in people not trusting such an arrangement that both Paul and Santorum's people have agreed to, yet they'll trust the same people running the party for years that have helped bring us to this junction in history.

That Santorum's supporters are taking a second look at Ron Paul rather than vote for Romney's delegates is an indication that the former Massachusetts governor still has major problems with his party's Republican base.

Sorry, but some do happen to like them...

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I'm not gonna play games with you.
We have had this discussion before and you play dumb or ignore the facts I offer about the republican partys own rules in regards to primary election and delegates.
Good night OKS, sleep tight don"t let the Paul-bots bite .

I agree...I dont' want to play games with you.

If you can't articulate what you are trying to say, I'll gladly say this conversation is over.

reply to post by jlm912

Sorry, but some do happen to like them

And some will happen to like Romney.

Are you willing to admit that Romney has far more delegates than Ron Paul and each additional one Romney gets is bad news for Paul?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Me? No, that wasn't at all my argument. Ron Paul has an uphill battle, if not damn near vertical wall to climb, before having any decent chance at GOP nomination. It'll be close to impossible to deny Romney the winning number of delegates. Close to impossible. Not quite there. But again, pretty close. I fully acknowledge that as fact.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by gmacev

 

Yes, very unlikely for him to win at this point.

In Theory...anyone can still win...all they need to do is enter the primary now and win enough delegates to force a brokered convention. It's not likely to happen at all...but it is possible.


What isn't possible, or logical, is for Ron Paul or his supporters to claim that he is currently "winning".

Nice to see you
Wouldn't be an Anti-RP topic without you here

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by schuyler
The fact is, when people actually vote (as opposed to caucuses) Paul gets about 11% of that. So there;s is no way that Paul will win. His supporters are completely delusional.

bingo

and that is in his own party. in a general election he's looking at 5%

Yet major polls have shown he's favored over Obama head to head?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by jlm912

 

Sorry, but some do happen to like them

And some will happen to like Romney.

Are you willing to admit that Romney has far more delegates than Ron Paul and each additional one Romney gets is bad news for Paul?

They Like Mitt Obama Romney? if anything shows how little people care to research someones idea's, voting record, and what they'll do in the future

Hey Outkast, check out this new article on Huffington Post. It tells us some Romney delegates who support Ron Paul may abstain at the convention.

www.huntingtonnews.net...

Originally posted by hab22
Hey Outkast, check out this new article on Huffington Post. It tells us some Romney delegates who support Ron Paul may abstain at the convention.

www.huntingtonnews.net...

Ok, that isn't the Huffington Post, but that doesn't really matter.

I'm assuming you are talking about this part of the article:

Meanwhile, Paul delegates have been elected in Massachusetts district caucuses Saturday, April 28. State delegates are bound to vote for Mitt Romney (or abstain ) on the first ballot at the convention. If a second ballot occurs, they can vote for whomever they prefer.

I didn't see any specifics other than that.

And I have seen no one post any back up to the claim that bound delegates can abstain from voting. Because the first round there is no "vote"...there is a roll call and the State RNC chairperson (who most likely is a loyal party member and not a loyal Ron Paul supporter) will just read off their delegate count. Sometime prior to the roll call they state delegation will get together and those that aren't bound will tell the chairperson who they are representing...the bound delegates have no say in this. It is fine for the unbound delegates to abstain...but not for the bound delegates.

If you or anyone else has information that proves that the RNC allows a bound delegate to abstain from voting, please provide it. I have been asking this for a few days now and people just say, "they can", but offer no proof.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I'm tired of you asking people to prove what people CAN'T do.

Right there is the second piece of news that mentions that bound delegates can abstain. Certainly, they are not "OFFICIAL GOP RULEBOOKS" but they are more than what you have.

Unless there is a rule stating that they can't abstain, I believe the ball is on your court OK. Why don't you be the burden of proof for once and show us anywhere, any rulebook where it actually says that bound delegates CAN NOT abstain from voting in the first round.

That is how rules work. Rules aren't assumed to be in place and then followed - they are either there, or they aren't. Prove that such a rule exists.

Check out the thread Ron Paul wins Louisiana. It shows why Ron Paul has a real chance to win the nomination. Romney won the Louisiana primary and therefore it's delegates are 'committed' to him on the first ballot but the process of actually choosing those delegates is essentially a local caucus process. Those who show up for the district meeting to chose the delegates, get to vote for who becomes a delegate. Guess what? Ron Paul supporters outnumbered the Mitt Romney supporters and voted in their slate for delegates in 4 out of the 6 districts and got half of the delegates in the 5th district. These delegates are 'committed' to vote for Romney BUT that's based on Louisiana GOP party rules. At the national convention, there is no way to enforce that commitment. The rules for the convention do NOT specify any way to enforce or penalize delegates who don't vote for their committed candidate nor is there even any mention of a mechanism to track who is a committed delegate and who isn't.

When each state delegation chairman announces how many of his delegates voted for whom, the convention officials can't and won't know which individual delegates voted the way they were supposed to. So it's quite possible that Ron Paul supporters will simply take over the delegate selection process in most if not all of the states and vote in delegates who will either abstain from voting for Romney or just change their 'committed' vote for RP and there is nothing that the national convention officials can do about it. This exercise in local democracy is the REAL secret behind Ron Paul's confidence that he has a real chance of a upset at the convention.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I'm tired of you asking people to prove what people CAN'T do.

Right there is the second piece of news that mentions that bound delegates can abstain. Certainly, they are not "OFFICIAL GOP RULEBOOKS" but they are more than what you have.

Unless there is a rule stating that they can't abstain, I believe the ball is on your court OK. Why don't you be the burden of proof for once and show us anywhere, any rulebook where it actually says that bound delegates CAN NOT abstain from voting in the first round.

That is how rules work. Rules aren't assumed to be in place and then followed - they are either there, or they aren't. Prove that such a rule exists.

The rules state that bound delegates MUST vote for the candidate they are bound to unless the candidate releases them.

This is the definition of "BOUND".

I'm not making any other claim other than what the rules already state.

If someone else comes and states that BOUND delegates can abstain...then it is on them to prove that...it isn't on me to prove they can't abstain. This is how logic works...you make a claim, you prove the claim. I'm simply asking for those claiming they can abstain to prove that they can.

Saying that nothing in the rules says bound delegates can't abstain, but ignoring that the rules state that bound delegates MUST vote for their candidate, is not proof.

reply to post by Studenofhistory

Romney won the Louisiana primary

No, he didn't....Santorum did.

I guess it's fitting you start out your whole post with incorrect information, because the rest of your post followed that theme.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

What rules? Quote the exact wording and source of that claim. If you're talking about state GOP rules, then their irrelevant to the national convention. What penalties will delegates face from their state GOP officials if they don't vote for the committed delegate(after the convention is over) and how will the state officials even know who voted for whom?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You're correct, Santorum won Louisiana. But in that thread, there is a post with the following line about selection of delegates committed to Romney where the events I described did in fact take place. If it happened there, it can happen anywhere.

Ron Paul supporters takeover Romney delegate process

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Show where the rules state this.

If you claim the "rules already state this" then show where they do.

That is unless you are just basing all of your words off of heresay. Do the research and if you truly want to do the right thing, quit asking people to prove a negative and show in these "rules" where it says that delegates are NOT allowed to abstain from voting.

Just to be clear, the link to the article about RP supporters taking over Romney delegate selection process happened in Massachusetts, not Louisiana.

But here's the point. Ron Paul supporters are taking over the GOP at the state level from the bottom up. They start out by voting delegates at the town or county level to go to the district conventions. From there they vote delegates to the state convention and at the state convention they not only vote for their choices for delegates to the national convention, they ALSO vote for their choice for state party chairman and other state party officials. It's up to the state party officials to enforce state party rules about delegates voting for their 'committed' candidate, if in fact there is any mechanism for enforcing that to begin with. So if you have state party officials that are Ron Paul supporters, what is the chance that they will 'enforce' the commitment of (Ron Paul) delegates who are supposed to vote for someone else but don't? If you said ZERO chance, you're right!

Does this have to happen in all 50 states for Ron Paul to get the nomination? No. It just has to happen in the right states that send the most delegates to the convention. Take Texas for example. 155 delegates to the convention. If Ron Paul, who is from Texas, doesn't beat Mitt Romney, who is the poster boy for a lot of the things that Texans dislike such as a) he's a Yankee! b) he represents east coast money and the elite and c) he's NOT from Texas, then there is a good chance that Ron Paul supporters, who are enthusiastic, while Romney's supporters are not, will still dominate the county, district and state delegate selection process.

I personally am suspicious of poll results that show Ron Paul at 11% or similar numbers. Show me any video of Mitt Romney getting 10,000 or 6,000 or even 3,000 supporters to a LOCAL town meeting. I haven't seen any. I've seen multiple videos of large Ron Paul crowds who seem to be far more motivated than the quiet Romney audiences. Even if the 11% numbers are accurate, which I doubt, but even if that's the case, what counts is who goes to the polls and who bothers to go to the GOP meetings. It does Romney no good if he has five times as many lackluster supporters who won't bother to vote or go to GOP meetings as Ron Paul if RP's supporters do vote and do show up for the meetings.

Romney's apparent clinching of the nomination process based on meaningless primaries and state caucuses, may actually backfire if his supporters in the states still to vote, don't bother to do so because they think he's already got it wrapped up.